Democrats Perception Of Saddam/iraq Before Gwb...so Will They Do The Same With Isis??

[JimH52]

There would be no ISIS if the recovering alcoholic had not decided to invade the WRONG COUNTRY after 9/11.

 

[JakeStarkey]

duck, you are coherent. What do yu think is the goal? Let's begin there.

 

[healthmyths]

No one is using a Bush quote byou, duck. I don't see any massive heavy formations be sent to the ME, son.

That is why the neo-cons are crying.

You either with us or against us ? That should sound mighty familiar, Jake. No need for massive formations for carry out the Neocon plan-----look at Libya.

Just too bad Obama has so much more vast military experience that the Pentagon !
I guess it is hard being a Messiah and the smartest President to explain to generals that have oh easily 1,000 years of collective military experiences but again we've seen how adept and adroit Obama is with Obamacare, immigrants, Benghazi, IRS, EPA.... all gigantic successes!

 

[chikenwing]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Well apparently you side with a box of rocks,because thats about your brain power,republican my ass,when are you coming clean ? people like this have ZERO credibility ZERO Bush hasn't been in charge in how long? ISIS wasn't in the picture at all when he left office,the current administration has the ball or well should have.

 

[healthmyths]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Well apparently you side with a box of rocks,because thats about your brain power,republican my ass,when are you coming clean ? people like this have ZERO credibility ZERO Bush hasn't been in charge in how long? ISIS wasn't in the picture at all when he left office,the current administration has the ball or well should have.

Good point!
Formed in 2013, ISIS is a jihadi Salafist militant group. It is virulently anti-democracy and sectarian – and also a seasoned militant operation with a transnational membership, to which, despite heavy losses, it is constantly recruiting. With key leaders who were prominent in the Iraqi insurgency in the 2000s, it is also well-armed and financed.
Explainer what is ISIS and where did it come from

 

[JimH52]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Well apparently you side with a box of rocks,because thats about your brain power,republican my ass,when are you coming clean ? people like this have ZERO credibility ZERO Bush hasn't been in charge in how long? ISIS wasn't in the picture at all when he left office,the current administration has the ball or well should have.

And ISIS would not be there is W had not decided to nation build.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just right, Jim H., and I am wondering if the America haters like healthmyths will support the pres, the congress, and the american people in time of crisis.

 

[dilloduck]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Well apparently you side with a box of rocks,because thats about your brain power,republican my ass,when are you coming clean ? people like this have ZERO credibility ZERO Bush hasn't been in charge in how long? ISIS wasn't in the picture at all when he left office,the current administration has the ball or well should have.

And ISIS would not be there is W had not decided to nation build.

pure speculation. The void left by American forces leaving sooner could have left a far bigger void for radicals to fill. The Bush bashing is evidence that the Obama team has NOTHING.

 

[rdean]

Course, you could say the same thing about North Korea, countries in Africa and central America. But Republicans CHOOSE to invade Iraq. Only Iraq. Why? What made Iraq "different"?

So much for humanitarianism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am talking about the Bush massive, treansonous failures that have so embolden ISIS and its allies to defy humanity.

You, apparently, side with ISIS.

Well apparently you side with a box of rocks,because thats about your brain power,republican my ass,when are you coming clean ? people like this have ZERO credibility ZERO Bush hasn't been in charge in how long? ISIS wasn't in the picture at all when he left office,the current administration has the ball or well should have.

And ISIS would not be there is W had not decided to nation build.

pure speculation. The void left by American forces leaving sooner could have left a far bigger void for radicals to fill. The Bush bashing is evidence that the Obama team has NOTHING.

Silly statement by you.

 

[TooTall]

9824514

. Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

Bush was not lying in October 2002 and prior to that point in time. Bush was 100% correct to use the threat of military action to bring Iraq into compliance with international law with regard to Iraq's longstanding defiance of is disarmament obligations
i fully agreed with Bush prior to passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 which Bush had requested.

It is after 1441 that the Bush lies start and he ended up starting the dumbest war on record because there was non threat with UN inspectors on the ground and there was no humanitarian crisis within Iraq at the time the invasion began. The humanitarian crisis began after the invasion and foreign fighters terrorist went in for the first time.

What Bill Clinton said in 1998 had nothing to do with the stupid Bush decision to invade in March 2003. UN Resolution 1441 had passed and a working inspection and monitoring regime had been effectively set up. There was no excuse for killing people by the US in March 2003 and after that.

If that was true, and of course it isn't, why did the leading Democrats vote to invade Iraq? And, I will ask for at least the fourth time, what lie did Bush tell that was not a repeat of statements made by Kerry, the Clinton's, and dozens of other Democrats? Answer me that!

 

[BluesLegend]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

Wrong!

 

[TooTall]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

Perhaps the Republicans can do to Obama what they did to Bush

Harry Reid vote YES on the bill to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002

And then said this in 2007.

Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows:that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

John Kerry said on October 9, 2002;

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown Universitysaying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Then in 2004 he said this:

During his bid to be elected president in2004, Kerry frequently criticized PresidentGeorge W. Bushfor theIraq War.While Kerry had initially voted in support of authorizing President Bush to use force in dealing with Saddam Hussein, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the subsequent war. His statement on March 16, 2004, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," helped the Bush campaign to paint him as a flip-flopper and has been cited as contributing to Kerry's defeat.

 

[BlindBoo]

9824514

. Again ALL these Democrat statements BEFORE Bush was President... so how could Bush have lied if he was relying on Clinton's administration's Iraq/Saddam intelligence unless Clinton was the liar and that could never be right???

Bush was not lying in October 2002 and prior to that point in time. Bush was 100% correct to use the threat of military action to bring Iraq into compliance with international law with regard to Iraq's longstanding defiance of is disarmament obligations
i fully agreed with Bush prior to passage of UNSC Resolution 1441 in November 2002 which Bush had requested.

It is after 1441 that the Bush lies start and he ended up starting the dumbest war on record because there was non threat with UN inspectors on the ground and there was no humanitarian crisis within Iraq at the time the invasion began. The humanitarian crisis began after the invasion and foreign fighters terrorist went in for the first time.

What Bill Clinton said in 1998 had nothing to do with the stupid Bush decision to invade in March 2003. UN Resolution 1441 had passed and a working inspection and monitoring regime had been effectively set up. There was no excuse for killing people by the US in March 2003 and after that.

If that was true, and of course it isn't, why did the leading Democrats vote to invade Iraq? And, I will ask for at least the fourth time, what lie did Bush tell that was not a repeat of statements made by Kerry, the Clinton's, and dozens of other Democrats? Answer me that!

Because they all pony up to the same trough?

 

[JimH52]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

Perhaps the Republicans can do to Obama what they did to Bush

Harry Reid vote YES on the bill to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002

And then said this in 2007.

Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows:that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

John Kerry said on October 9, 2002;

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown Universitysaying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Then in 2004 he said this:

During his bid to be elected president in2004, Kerry frequently criticized PresidentGeorge W. Bushfor theIraq War.While Kerry had initially voted in support of authorizing President Bush to use force in dealing with Saddam Hussein, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the subsequent war. His statement on March 16, 2004, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," helped the Bush campaign to paint him as a flip-flopper and has been cited as contributing to Kerry's defeat.

Didn't take anyone long to realize that the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on fabrications, lies, and cherry picking information to suit W and DICK's desires. They even went as far as to get the honorable Colin Powell to go to the UN and restate their fabrications. Iraq was a "War of Choice." Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. They had nothing to do with it, but W wanted revenge on Saddam because he tried to kill his daddy. It worked out well for W, DICK and Haliburton. For the soldiers who had to go there...not so much. For the tax payers who are now paying for the "War of Choice." Not so much...

W, the president who led the country into a "War of Choice" and also led the country into the worst economic downturn since the great depression. I would be retiring this year had it not been for the incompetence of the Bush administration. Thanks W....

 

[dilloduck]

Course, you could say the same thing about North Korea, countries in Africa and central America. But Republicans CHOOSE to invade Iraq. Only Iraq. Why? What made Iraq "different"?

So much for humanitarianism.

Wrong-----the neocon plan was primarily about Israel and since then other countries on their hit list have been attacked thanks to Obama's cooperation.

 

[dilloduck]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

Perhaps the Republicans can do to Obama what they did to Bush

Harry Reid vote YES on the bill to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002

And then said this in 2007.

Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows:that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

John Kerry said on October 9, 2002;

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown Universitysaying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Then in 2004 he said this:

During his bid to be elected president in2004, Kerry frequently criticized PresidentGeorge W. Bushfor theIraq War.While Kerry had initially voted in support of authorizing President Bush to use force in dealing with Saddam Hussein, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the subsequent war. His statement on March 16, 2004, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," helped the Bush campaign to paint him as a flip-flopper and has been cited as contributing to Kerry's defeat.

Didn't take anyone long to realize that the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on fabrications, lies, and cherry picking information to suit W and DICK's desires. They even went as far as to get the honorable Colin Powell to go to the UN and restate their fabrications. Iraq was a "War of Choice." Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. They had nothing to do with it, but W wanted revenge on Saddam because he tried to kill his daddy. It worked out well for W, DICK and Haliburton. For the soldiers who had to go there...not so much. For the tax payers who are now paying for the "War of Choice." Not so much...

W, the president who led the country into a "War of Choice" and also led the country into the worst economic downturn since the great depression. I would be retiring this year had it not been for the incompetence of the Bush administration. Thanks W....

Who did Libya attack ?

 

[healthmyths]

hm can no more prove his sstatements thn he could on health care costs.

He simply babbles.

Bush and his buddies got it wrong, completely, and that ruined the ME.

You neo-cons are not going to get another chance until we elect a GOP president and that does not seem likely ever again unless the party changes.

Perhaps the Republicans can do to Obama what they did to Bush

Harry Reid vote YES on the bill to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002

And then said this in 2007.

Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows:that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.

John Kerry said on October 9, 2002;

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Bush relied on that resolution in ordering the2003 invasion of Iraq. Kerry also gave a January 23, 2003 speech to Georgetown Universitysaying "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator; leading an oppressive regime he presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Then in 2004 he said this:

During his bid to be elected president in2004, Kerry frequently criticized PresidentGeorge W. Bushfor theIraq War.While Kerry had initially voted in support of authorizing President Bush to use force in dealing with Saddam Hussein, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the subsequent war. His statement on March 16, 2004, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," helped the Bush campaign to paint him as a flip-flopper and has been cited as contributing to Kerry's defeat.

Didn't take anyone long to realize that the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on fabrications, lies, and cherry picking information to suit W and DICK's desires. They even went as far as to get the honorable Colin Powell to go to the UN and restate their fabrications. Iraq was a "War of Choice." Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. They had nothing to do with it, but W wanted revenge on Saddam because he tried to kill his daddy. It worked out well for W, DICK and Haliburton. For the soldiers who had to go there...not so much. For the tax payers who are now paying for the "War of Choice." Not so much...

W, the president who led the country into a "War of Choice" and also led the country into the worst economic downturn since the great depression. I would be retiring this year had it not been for the incompetence of the Bush administration. Thanks W....

NOT ONE FACT in your rambling, incoherent, exaggerations that again reinforces your gross ignorance.
But of course YOU totally ignore the FACTS of:
1) Do YOU agree a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Source: USATODAY.com - It s official 2001 recession only lasted eight months

2) Do YOU agree that the dot.com bust occurred and cost $5 trillion in losses?
According to the Los Angeles Times, when the dot-com bubble burst, it wiped out $5 trillion dollars in market value for tech companies. More than half of the Internet companies created since 1995 were gone by 2004 - and hundreds of thousands of skilled technology workers were out of jobs.
Source: The dot-com bubble How to lose 5 trillion 8211 Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs

3) Hard to believe but people forget that 9/11 cost $2 trillion in lost businesses,market values assets.
Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100 JUST in New York.
Year 2001: September 11 Terrorist Attacks
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were the events that helped shape other financial events of the decade. After that terrible day in September 2001, our economic climate was never to be the same again. It was only the third time in history that the New York Stock Exchange was shut down for a period of time. In this case, it was closed from September 10 - 17. Besides the tragic human loss of that day, the economic loss cannot even be estimated. Some estimate that there was over $60 billion in insurance losses alone.
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were either displaced or destroyed in Lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell. There was a buildup in homeland security on all levels. 9/11 caused a catastrophic financial loss for the U.S.
Source: The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

4) $1 trillion in written off losses due to the WORST Hurricane SEASONS in history.
The worst Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 in 2005. It took 1,836 lives and caused $81.2 billion in damages. Andrew slammed into South Florida in 1992 as a Category 5. It caused 40 deaths and $30 billion in property damage. More than 250,000 people were left homeless and 82,000 businesses were destroyed or damaged.
Hurricane Katrina ALONE! Year 2005: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
On August 25, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as a strong Category 3 or low Category 4 storm. It quickly became the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, almost destroying New Orleans due to severe flooding.
The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade

THESE events OCCURRED!
YET in SPITE of a) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita , b) 2,800,000 jobs in alone due to 9/11,
c) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts...
In spite of nearly $8 trillion in lost businesses, market values, destroyed property.. IN SPITE of that:

AFTER the tax cuts Federal Tax REVENUES Increased an average of 9.78% per year!!!
Government Revenue Details Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

Year revenue(billions) increase/
decrease Change Reason
2000 $1,211

2001 $1,145 -$ 66 -5.47% -- remember Wall street closed, no flights 3 days destructions!
2002 $1,006 -$139 -12.14% In spite of dot.com/911 losses tax writes offs..
2003 $ 926 -$ 81 -8.04% dot.com/911 losses tax write offs
2004 $ 998 $ 73 up! 7.87% ^ Tax cuts STARTED.. in spite of tax revenues UP!
2005 $1,206 $207 up! 20.76%^ Again tax cuts in play.. REVENUES UP!!!
2006 $1,398 $192 UP! 15.95%^ AGAIN tax cuts but REVENUES UP!!!
2007 $1,534 $136 UP! 9.72%^ Again tax cuts BUT revenues UP!!!
2008 $1,450 -$ 84 - 5.45% $500 billion pulled out of MMF on 9/18/08 in 2 hours!

Where are YOUR FACTS??? Crap... that's all you've provided!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Where the wind blows politically they will be........

Democrats' memories only go as far back as their latest revisionist history allows for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hm once again provides a rambling incoherntly hysterical rant.

kiddo, you are not going to get your neo-con hearts' desires fulfilled.

After your fiasco in Iraq, you don't get a second chance. Ever.